The government must prove the respondents’ removability by clear and convincing evidence. Reviewing the BIA’s findings for substantial evidence, this court concludes that the government met its burden.
Even though the government was unable to produce the respondents’ alien files containing their applications for adjustment of status, the government presented a constellation of circumstantial evidence linking the respondents to the scheme perpetrated by a corrupt INS officer in taking bribes for providing fraudulent “Green-Cards.”
Where the respondents’ names and an alien file numbers appeared on a list that the corrupt INS officer submitted to law enforcement authorities identifying the non-citizens who obtained LPR status through the conspiracy, and where the respondents’ mother, in her sworn testimony to ICE, admitted that she procured her LPR status as the spouse of apriority worker—Alien with Extraordinary Ability (such as a Nobel Prize recipient), an Outstanding Professor or Researcher, or a Multinational Executive or Manager---through payment of $30,000 to one of the coconspirators and undergone a sham interview with the corrupt INS officer at a coconspirator’s home, but her husband did not fit any of the descriptions and, in fact, never had LPR status within the United States, this court finds that the government has proved the respondents’ removability by clear and convincing evidence, and the BIA’s removability determination was accordingly supported by substantial evidence.
The respondents’ contention that the BIA’s refusal to consider their green cards as the functional equivalent of an “immigrant visa” for the purposes of INA § 212(k), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(k) violates equal protection because it is based on an irrational distinction between arriving aliens, or applicants for admission and returning resident aliens is without merit. Because the respondents were improperly granted their green cards, their LPR status was void ab initio. Their so-called green cards conferred no rights and the respondents accordingly were not charged with removability as returning LPRs, but rather were charged and found removable as non-citizens lacking a valid entry document at the time of their admission from trips abroad. Because they do not belong to the class of returning LPRs who are allegedly similarly situated to applicants for admission, they cannot show injury from the alleged discrimination, much less any effective redress that this court could afford them, therefore, this court dismisses the respondents’ equal protection challenge for lack of standing.
This court does not need to reach the issue of whether the term “immigrant visa” as used in INA § 212(k), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(k) can be read to encompass green cards because the respondents did not have valid green cards at the time of entry and therefore lack standing to pursue this claim as well.
The government has proved the respondents’ removability, so thepetition for review is denied in part. Because the respondents lack standing to raise their equal protection claim and their claim that their green cards provide a predicate for a § 212(k) waiver of inadmissibility, the petition for review is dismissed in part.
No comments:
Post a Comment